Maybe not proper for Tommy Thomas to act for AG in this contempt proceedings Arun Kasi?

Tommy Thomas, Attorney General/Public Prosecutor of Malaysia, should really not be acting in this contempt proceedings in my opinion. Even the title of one of the two articles mentions 'Tommy Thomas'

WHY? 

The alleged contempt, allegedly arises in 2 articles written by Arun Kasi, which were entitled:- 

“How a dissenting judgment sparked a major judicial crisis” dated Feb 16, 2019, and 

“Tommy Thomas must look into arbitration centre that sparked judicial crisis” dated Feb 22, 2019.

 Arun, who is an advocate and solicitor, had authored two articles which were published on the Aliran website under the heading “How a dissenting judgment sparked a major judicial crisis” dated Feb 16, 2019, and “Tommy Thomas must look into arbitration centre that sparked judicial crisis” dated Feb 22, 2019.

At the ex-parte stage, Senior Federal Counsel Datuk Amarjeet Singh seem to have  represented the Attorney General.

But, at the contempt proceedings, it seems that AG Tommy Thomas  also acted for AG. This, I do not think is proper or right - in my opinion, some other Senior Federal Counsel should have acted. 

I have yet to read the 2 articles, but based on the media reports, it seems to be about 

The articles in question had criticised the apex court’s Nov 7, 2018 decision to expunge Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer’s dissenting judgement in the case of Leap Modulation Sdn Bhd vs PCP Construction Sdn Bhd.

In both Arun’s original statement and the published articles, Thomas (photo) argued that he had “crossed the line” and committed contempt of court when he suggested that the Federal Court’s decision to expunge Hamid’s dissenting judgement warranted an investigation by the MACC.

I may later discuss more about this issue - but I am concerned that this seems to be a question of freedom of expression and opinion. I believe that anyone should have the right to express their opinions about even court judgments. To say, that judgments of courts are unquestionable is just not right. Well, many have said in the past that the judgments made in Anwar Ibrahim's case was wrong - would they also be subjected to contempt proceedings by the Attorney General.

Judges are human beings, and as as such they are fallible - they can make mistakes, and everyone should have the right to highlight what they see as wrong, don't they? 

Is the new government and/or the new Attorney General now saying that judges and judgments should just be accepted and not questioned or criticized? 

Judges themselves can initiate contempt proceedings, but here the Judges did not but the Attorney General did.  Or did the judiciary ask the AG to initiate contempt proceedings? A lot of questions and we really must look at it in more detail...

Judges make their judgments, and in the Court of Appeal, where usually it is a coram of 3 judges, all of them are expected to give their own judgment. Should the Federal Court later have the power to 'edit out'(expunge) part of the judgment of any of the Court of Appeal judges? Remember, a dissenting judgment also have value as it can be relied on in other cases...

A lot of questions ...something we need to study more and understand better... 

In any case, I am of the opinion, that Tommy Thomas should not have acted on behalf of the Attorney General in this particular case..Maybe, it should have been the Solicitor General or maybe some other Senior Federal Counsel..

Drama and sparks at lawyer's contempt proceedings

Annabelle Lee  |  Published: 28 Mar 2019, 6:51 pm  |  Modified: 28 Mar 2019, 6:51 pm

 

   

Testifying in contempt proceedings against him before the Federal Court in Putrajaya today, lawyer Arun Kasi maintained that he had not scandalised the courts in two articles of his published on an NGO’s website.

Though being significantly edited versions of his original statements, he said that in substance, the pieces showed that he had written them in good faith and in public interest with no intent to attack the judiciary.

The articles in question had criticised the apex court’s Nov 7, 2018 decision to expunge Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer’s dissenting judgement in the case of Leap Modulation Sdn Bhd vs PCP Construction Sdn Bhd.

In response, Attorney-General Tommy Thomas, who initiated the contempt proceedings against Arun, contended that it would be an insult to any reader of the articles to have understood it to be anything other than an attack on the judiciary.

Arun booted from witness stand

Today’s court proceedings was heard by a five-member bench, which was led by Justice Ramly Ali and comprised judges Rohana Yusof, Azahar Mohamed, Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and P Nallini.

Proceedings were interrupted by a total of four breaks following several charged exchanges.

The hearing began with Arun’s (photo) lead counsel V Bastian asking for an adjournment on grounds that his client needed to tend to his daughter who had been admitted to hospital.

The judges dismissed the application after a short break but were again asked to call for another recess by Bastian, explaining that he needed more time to prepare Arun for his oral evidence submission.

When the court resumed, Arun was cautioned by the judges to speak only on relevant points not already mentioned in his affidavit.

After Arun repeatedly mentioned that his articles were in the public interest and meant to seek reform of the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), the judges again cautioned him to stay on course.

Justice Ramly eventually instructed Arun to “step down now” from the witness stand and called for a lunch break.

Defense counsel told to 'cool down'

When the hearing resumed, Thomas submitted that Arun had never asked the NGO to correct his articles, despite claiming they were different from his original statements.

In both Arun’s original statement and the published articles, Thomas (photo) argued that he had “crossed the line” and committed contempt of court when he suggested that the Federal Court’s decision to expunge Hamid’s dissenting judgement warranted an investigation by the MACC.

The proceedings came to yet another halt after Bastian responded to this by saying the Federal Court had indeed erred in their Nov 7 decision. This caused several of the judges to ask Bastian if he was aware of the seriousness of his allegation.

“I call for a stand down and will give you 10 minutes to cool down,” Justice Ramly told Bastian.

When the session reconvened, Bastian submitted that Arun, in his articles, was not calling for the MACC to probe the three Federal Court judges who made the Nov 7 decision but had called attention to the intervention by the AIAC into the case.

Even if Arun’s comments were considered scandalous, Bastian argued that the allegations, which arose from Hamid’s affidavit for another case, had already been reported by other news outlets before his client’s articles were published.

“So it is okay to undermine public confidence in the judiciary because public confidence had already been undermined? Is that Arun Kasi’s position?” asked Justice Nallini.

'Don't get personal,' AG told

Thomas then stressed that Arun’s criticism had been directed at the courts and no other body.

“It is insulting the intelligence of the readers of the article and the press release (to believe) that the attack was on the MACC (or the AIAC). It was an attack on the judiciary,” the attorney-general, who appeared visibly upset, said when pointing out to the bench where Arun had criticised the courts.

This prompted lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla, a member of Arun’s legal team, to urge the attorney-general to not “get personal” with his submissions.

Thomas responded by saying officers of the courts ought to administer the truth when carrying out their jobs.

He also argued that even if other news articles had commented on allegations contained in Hamid’s “notorious” affidavit, Arun could not be allowed to scandalise the courts in his articles on the NGO’s website.

After hearing submissions from both sides, the five-member bench set April 23 to deliver their decision.- Malaysiakini, 28/3/2019

Contempt proceedings against lawyer Arun Kasi over Hamid affidavit articles in Aliran (updated)
Nation


Wednesday, 27 Feb 2019 1:22 PM MYT




PUTRAJAYA (Bernama): The Federal Court has granted an ex-parte application for leave by Attorney General Tommy Thomas (pic) to initiate contempt proceedings against a lawyer who had allegedly criticised the proceedings and decision of a court case.

Justice Ramly Ali, who chaired a three-man bench, allowed Thomas to go ahead with the proceedings against Arunachalam Kasi who had, in two articles published on the Aliran online portal, made the alleged criticism in reference to an affidavit of Court of Appeal Judge Dr Abdul Hamid Abu Backer on alleged judicial misconduct.

The court fixed March 13 for a substantive inter-partes hearing for both parties to submit.

"The case before us is an ex-parte application. This is on scandalising judges of the Federal Court. The act complained of relates to two articles by the respondent (Arunachalam Kasi, also known as Arun Kasi) published on Feb 16 and Feb 22, 2019, on the Aliran website.

"Having considered the submissions and all the court papers, we are satisfied that all procedures required for leave have been fulfilled.

"We, therefore, grant the order sought by the applicant," said Justice Ramly, who heard the matter with Justices Rohana Yusuf and Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.

Earlier, the court heard submissions by Senior Federal Counsel Datuk Amarjeet Singh who represented the Attorney General.

Amarjeet submitted that Arun, who is an advocate and solicitor, had authored two articles which were published on the Aliran website under the heading “How a dissenting judgment sparked a major judicial crisis” dated Feb 16, 2019, and “Tommy Thomas must look into arbitration centre that sparked judicial crisis” dated Feb 22, 2019.

He said that in both articles, he had criticised the conduct of the proceedings by the Federal Court and the decision that was delivered on Nov 11, 2018, in the case of PCP Construction vs Leap Modulation (the Leap Modulation case).

“The statements in the articles impute impropriety in carrying out judicial functions and lack of integrity by the judges who had decided the Leap Modulation case.

“The conduct and the irregularities committed in the case were said to warrant an investigation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

“The respondent had, on Feb 9, 2019, made such a complaint against the irregularities committed in the case,” he said.

Amarjeet said the contempt committed in the case was “scandalising contempt” for interfering with the administration of justice.

He said such interference would occur when there are acts and statements undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.

“The authority of the law rests on public confidence, and it is important to the stability of society that the confidence of the public should not be shaken by baseless attacks on the integrity or impartiality of the judges,” he said.

He further submitted that the Attorney General had identified the offensive statements in the articles, which was possible when one read each article in its entirety.

He said Arun, in his second article, had questioned why the Federal Court had expunged Justice Abdul Hamid's remarks about the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) in the Leap Modulation judgment.

Amarjeet said the statement in the second article had scandalised the judges, which, among others, meant that expunging parts of the dissenting judgment without an appeal was unprecedented and making the order of expungement when the right parties were not heard in opposition.

He also said that the two articles had insinuated that the Federal Court judges who heard and decided the Leap Modulation case were guilty of misconduct and impropriety in carrying out their judicial functions, involved in corrupt activity and had compromised their integrity, which warranted an investigation by the MACC.

He said Arun had made untrue statements and this was borne out by the Court of Transcript of the Proceedings dated Nov 11, 2018, in the Leap Modulation case.

“The statements set out in the articles, when read as a whole or individually, gave rise to the perception and conveyed imputation which are not only demeaning, insulting and offensive to the dignity, integrity and impartiality of the Federal Court but which will have or might have a tendency to undermine public confidence in the Judiciary,” he said. – Bernama

Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/02/27/contempt-proceedings-against-lawyer-arun-kasi-over-hamid-affidavit-articles-in-aliran/#Jy5AgZpxpgflQPw4.99